King George V famously uttered some very unflattering words about Bognor – and City felt much the same with the rookie referee from the seaside town.

They left their first-ever trip to this corner of the Fylde coast cursing the man who had travelled up from another equally old-fashioned holiday resort.

The problem with the Capital One Cup odyssey is that we’ve become spoiled with officials. When you see the likes of Howard Webb, Mike Dean and Phil Dowd effortlessly keeping the action flowing, it makes the next League Two game all the more jarring.

The whistle-blowing standards on Saturday did not just bring everyone back down to earth with a bump. It left a mighty crater on a surface that resembled the nearby beach at Knott End.

Tim Robinson may well go on to become an excellent referee and one day rub shoulders with the Premier League elite. But at the moment he is a rookie learning the trade in his first season on the Football League list – and how it showed.

It would be easy just to point the finger for the controversial penalty that turned City’s seemingly secure three points into one after he ruled that James Hanson had deliberately handled in his own six-yard box.

But Robinson was consistently under-par for both sides. Hanson suffered the brunt of his poor decision-making and the visitors were also livid that he saw nothing wrong with Nahki Wells being hurled to the ground.

Equally, the home fans were giving the ref the bird at regular intervals. The generous spot-kick may have made amends but the locals seemed just as unimpressed with his performance.

Phil Parkinson was angry at the penalty that was given – and the one that could/should have been minutes before.

The City boss said: “Nahki’s been flattened in the middle of the goal and not got a penalty. Then at the other end we get a ball smashed at a player from two yards. It really is so harsh to drop two points in that manner.

“But I’d said to the ref at half-time that I don’t how much fairer James Hanson can jump when he’s challenging for the ball.

“He is generally a very honest player, he never goes in with his arms up. I thought it was poor that so many fouls were given against him in the first half.

“They were a young group of officials and I feel they got a lot of calls wrong.”

So it was a bittersweet reaction to City’s first league game in three weeks. Yet on the face of it, a draw away to the free-spenders of the division is not to be sniffed at.

Fleetwood had flexed their financial muscle once again during the January transfer window, bringing in Kidderminster targetman Jamille Matt for a club-record fee thought to be in the region of £300,000.

That’s to go with ‘the Beast’ Jon Parkin, whose £4,000 weekly wage packet is certainly a beauty. Not bad for a side who play in the third-smallest ground in the league.

Owner Andy Pilley’s wealth has catapulted the Cod Army into League Two on the back of five promotions and they are clearly eyeing one more.

For City, it was a character-testing afternoon after the euphoria of Villa Park and all that jazz.

The mini-break in Tenerife had helped to clear minds and freshen bodies. Parkinson said he had noticed the difference straight away when they returned to wet and windy Rawdon Meadows on Friday.

But for the first 40 minutes it appeared that thoughts were still lingering around the Canary Islands pool.

City had sold out their ticket allocation – that seems to be the norm at the moment – and the roar behind the goal reminded them of the battle ahead.

Yet for the majority of a plodding first half, the away fans focused their vocal chords on abusing Gareth Evans. Their own team provided frustratingly little to cheer about.

With memories still fresh of his Rotherham celebrations, Evans was booed with every touch.

His were the first ankles to suffer on the heavy, unyielding pitch – but not before his corner was turned home at the near post by Alan Goodall as Carl McHugh was caught ball-watching.

Rory McArdle had also needed treatment but tried to soldier on. He gave it up just before the break – and was using crutches by the time he took a seat in the dugout for the second half.

Wembley always throws up a heartache story but it would be so cruel if McArdle, the ever-reliable defender, should not be involved in the historic occasion he has done so much to get City to.

Jamie Allen should have punished another moment’s slackness from City but flicked a free header over the bar and into the jeering away masses.

But then City came to the party a minute before half-time. Gary Jones, once again their strongest warrior, was barged over by centre half Nathan Pond and up stepped Wells with a bending free-kick which left keeper Scott Davies rooted to the spot.

Ryan Dickson had replaced McArdle, allowing McHugh to move back into the middle alongside new boy Michael Nelson.

The Southampton loanee had looked predictably rusty in his first two outings against Oxford and Crewe. But the training time with his new team-mates looked to have made its mark as he appeared far more up to speed.

Having sat too deep for the first half, Parkinson urged his team to push on to the home side for the second. They answered his call immediately, with Dickson cashing in seven minutes after the restart.

McHugh swept a pass to the left wing to pick out the overlapping full back. Wells was in the middle but space opened up invitingly for Dickson, who kept going and calmly slotted home his first goal in exactly 12 months.

Parkinson said: “Ryan’s a very good player but it’s been difficult for him. Even though he’s trained hard at Southampton, he hasn’t played for a long time. That’s the problem when you bring loan players in.

“His first two games were always going to be tough but he showed on Saturday what he’s all about. He’s got great energy and ability and can still get sharper than that on the ball.”

Dickson’s goal threatened to be the decisive one as City took a stranglehold.

Parkinson was beside himself when Robinson ignored Shaun Beeley’s wrestling throw on Wells in the box – and the steam on the sidelines hit boiling level as Goodall rescued Ryan Crowther’s free-kick on the byline, hitting Hanson’s outstretched left arm with the cross.

The big striker could not get out of the way but the referee blew straight away for the penalty. The fact that Matt Duke was agonisingly close to keeping Parkin’s spot-kick out just added to the frustration.

Attendance: 3,577

Comments (28)

Personally I thought it was a pen. If it hits his arms at the sides fair enough but they were up in the air and stopped what would have been a dangerous cross. If it had been our end we would have gone bonkers had it not been given. Positives- it's a good point at a tough place.

Personally I thought it was a pen. If it hits his arms at the sides fair enough but they were up in the air and stopped what would have been a dangerous cross. If it had been our end we would have gone bonkers had it not been given. Positives- it's a good point at a tough place.Dancinfeet

That's how I saw it as well. I saw it at the game and on tv and if you have your arms in the air and the ball hit you then a pen is going to be given.

I also saw Wells dragged to the ground, shame the ref didn't.

That's how I saw it as well. I saw it at the game and on tv and if you have your arms in the air and the ball hit you then a pen is going to be given.
I also saw Wells dragged to the ground, shame the ref didn't.BD16

Personally I thought it were a penalty too. It was poor defending with his arms so far above his head, its not as though we can say they were in a natural position is it, even if not deliberate. Still sounds like the ref was poor though and getting one decision correct isn't good enough

Personally I thought it were a penalty too. It was poor defending with his arms so far above his head, its not as though we can say they were in a natural position is it, even if not deliberate. Still sounds like the ref was poor though and getting one decision correct isn't good enoughmacca1969

If your hands are in the air then its always going to be given however he raised his hands to show he wasnt grabbing / fouling their attacker so it was harsh. No way was it deliberate but lets face it, theres only a handfull of refs in England who are capable of making sound split second decisions using their judgement and discretion.

If your hands are in the air then its always going to be given however he raised his hands to show he wasnt grabbing / fouling their attacker so it was harsh. No way was it deliberate but lets face it, theres only a handfull of refs in England who are capable of making sound split second decisions using their judgement and discretion.Cityboy78

I think you are all missing the point and listening to muppet pundits on the TV. The rules ARE that it is NOT a penalty if the ball strikes you. Hanson was struck by a fast moving ball. He could not dream of getting out of the way of it...the only correct decision is NO PENALTY. One of too many poor calls by another poor ref.

I think you are all missing the point and listening to muppet pundits on the TV. The rules ARE that it is NOT a penalty if the ball strikes you. Hanson was struck by a fast moving ball. He could not dream of getting out of the way of it...the only correct decision is NO PENALTY. One of too many poor calls by another poor ref.KnightMcCall

Kmc they is a whole book from FIFA giving guidance to referees in making decisions on the laws of the game. According to ex referees it clearly states accidental handball is not punishable by a foul but if the ref deems the hand or arms are in an unnatural position a foul can be given. Stupid I know as refs don't have the brains or consistency to get these calls correct. Theses were the words of graham poll not me so don't shoot me

Kmc they is a whole book from FIFA giving guidance to referees in making decisions on the laws of the game. According to ex referees it clearly states accidental handball is not punishable by a foul but if the ref deems the hand or arms are in an unnatural position a foul can be given. Stupid I know as refs don't have the brains or consistency to get these calls correct. Theses were the words of graham poll not me so don't shoot memacca1969

* Was there deliberate intention to block/stop the ball movement?.
*
I CHALLENGE ANYONE AT ALL --To jump into the air--to gain maximum height --WITH YOUR ARMS PINNED TO YOUR SIDES !!!.
*
When I played--Coach would make us keep arms down. BLOODY IMPOSSIBLE to get high up!.
*
Everyone is complaining about the 'Ref.' again. Have you noticed that when ref's are castigated by City etc.. We get more and more grief, from further ref's, in future matches?.
*
The only people that can justifiably complain are.--The TWO Managers--The Referees Assessor.
*
Whether or not this achieves any effect, is very debatable !!
*

*
KnightMcCall says...
9:44am Mon 4 Feb 13
* TOTALLY agree your observational comment.
* Was there deliberate intention to block/stop the ball movement?.
*
I CHALLENGE ANYONE AT ALL --To jump into the air--to gain maximum height --WITH YOUR ARMS PINNED TO YOUR SIDES !!!.
*
When I played--Coach would make us keep arms down. BLOODY IMPOSSIBLE to get high up!.
*
Everyone is complaining about the 'Ref.' again. Have you noticed that when ref's are castigated by City etc.. We get more and more grief, from further ref's, in future matches?.
*
The only people that can justifiably complain are.--The TWO Managers--The Referees Assessor.
*
Whether or not this achieves any effect, is very debatable !!
*Freddy

Just watched the penalty incident again....have to say it's absolutely a stonewall penalty. Big Jim is not off the ground, so the notion of using arms to assist a jump is nonsense. As is raising his arms to show he's not interfering with the opposition player....he's a good 4 or 5 feet away, with Duke diving at the oppo's feet. You'd have to ask The Man From The Co-op himselfjust what on earth he was doing with his hands raised so high... stacking the top shelf,perhaps?

Just watched the penalty incident again....have to say it's absolutely a stonewall penalty. Big Jim is not off the ground, so the notion of using arms to assist a jump is nonsense. As is raising his arms to show he's not interfering with the opposition player....he's a good 4 or 5 feet away, with Duke diving at the oppo's feet. You'd have to ask The Man From The Co-op himselfjust what on earth he was doing with his hands raised so high... stacking the top shelf,perhaps?BigFigure

macca1969 wrote:
Kmc they is a whole book from FIFA giving guidance to referees in making decisions on the laws of the game. According to ex referees it clearly states accidental handball is not punishable by a foul but if the ref deems the hand or arms are in an unnatural position a foul can be given. Stupid I know as refs don't have the brains or consistency to get these calls correct. Theses were the words of graham poll not me so don't shoot me

I've seen the same thing Macca. It basically says that a ref has all the power in the world to make whatever decision they want and they can never be wrong because there is subjectivity. However; JH was trying to stretch his left leg to block the ball; see if it is humanly possible to stretch your left leg into the air withour using your arms to balance yourself. It really is ridiculous that in 2013 we don't have rules that WORK; instead of subjectivity of a muppet official.

[quote][p][bold]macca1969[/bold] wrote:
Kmc they is a whole book from FIFA giving guidance to referees in making decisions on the laws of the game. According to ex referees it clearly states accidental handball is not punishable by a foul but if the ref deems the hand or arms are in an unnatural position a foul can be given. Stupid I know as refs don't have the brains or consistency to get these calls correct. Theses were the words of graham poll not me so don't shoot me[/p][/quote]I've seen the same thing Macca. It basically says that a ref has all the power in the world to make whatever decision they want and they can never be wrong because there is subjectivity. However; JH was trying to stretch his left leg to block the ball; see if it is humanly possible to stretch your left leg into the air withour using your arms to balance yourself. It really is ridiculous that in 2013 we don't have rules that WORK; instead of subjectivity of a muppet official.KnightMcCall

macca1969 wrote:
Kmc they is a whole book from FIFA giving guidance to referees in making decisions on the laws of the game. According to ex referees it clearly states accidental handball is not punishable by a foul but if the ref deems the hand or arms are in an unnatural position a foul can be given. Stupid I know as refs don't have the brains or consistency to get these calls correct. Theses were the words of graham poll not me so don't shoot me

I've seen the same thing Macca. It basically says that a ref has all the power in the world to make whatever decision they want and they can never be wrong because there is subjectivity. However; JH was trying to stretch his left leg to block the ball; see if it is humanly possible to stretch your left leg into the air withour using your arms to balance yourself. It really is ridiculous that in 2013 we don't have rules that WORK; instead of subjectivity of a muppet official.

I agree totally with you,with referees given basically carte blanche to interpret the rules as they see fit. The laws should be the laws full stop not open to interpretation. That way as fans we would hopefully see consistency and this ill feeling towards clown refs would be banished. Unfortunately I can't ever see this happen as FIFA seem more concerned with creating more grey areas like the stupid interfering or not offside law

[quote][p][bold]KnightMcCall[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]macca1969[/bold] wrote:
Kmc they is a whole book from FIFA giving guidance to referees in making decisions on the laws of the game. According to ex referees it clearly states accidental handball is not punishable by a foul but if the ref deems the hand or arms are in an unnatural position a foul can be given. Stupid I know as refs don't have the brains or consistency to get these calls correct. Theses were the words of graham poll not me so don't shoot me[/p][/quote]I've seen the same thing Macca. It basically says that a ref has all the power in the world to make whatever decision they want and they can never be wrong because there is subjectivity. However; JH was trying to stretch his left leg to block the ball; see if it is humanly possible to stretch your left leg into the air withour using your arms to balance yourself. It really is ridiculous that in 2013 we don't have rules that WORK; instead of subjectivity of a muppet official.[/p][/quote]I agree totally with you,with referees given basically carte blanche to interpret the rules as they see fit. The laws should be the laws full stop not open to interpretation. That way as fans we would hopefully see consistency and this ill feeling towards clown refs would be banished. Unfortunately I can't ever see this happen as FIFA seem more concerned with creating more grey areas like the stupid interfering or not offside lawmacca1969

KnightMcCall wrote:
I think you are all missing the point and listening to muppet pundits on the TV. The rules ARE that it is NOT a penalty if the ball strikes you. Hanson was struck by a fast moving ball. He could not dream of getting out of the way of it...the only correct decision is NO PENALTY. One of too many poor calls by another poor ref.

handball must be deliberate!!!! this man should be a pundit. i remember lee dixon saying on tv the other month , that if these incidents (like james hansons) werent given then they'd be no penalties in football!!! and hes paid well to come out with that crap.... read this
http://sports.yahoo.
com/soccer/news?slug
=ycn-8987393

[quote][p][bold]KnightMcCall[/bold] wrote:
I think you are all missing the point and listening to muppet pundits on the TV. The rules ARE that it is NOT a penalty if the ball strikes you. Hanson was struck by a fast moving ball. He could not dream of getting out of the way of it...the only correct decision is NO PENALTY. One of too many poor calls by another poor ref.[/p][/quote]handball must be deliberate!!!! this man should be a pundit. i remember lee dixon saying on tv the other month , that if these incidents (like james hansons) werent given then they'd be no penalties in football!!! and hes paid well to come out with that crap.... read this
http://sports.yahoo.
com/soccer/news?slug
=ycn-8987393glue ear

That was a clear penalty im afraid.
He is standing there with his hands above his head, and blocked a ball across the box. Imagine how angry you would be if it was at the other end and not given,.

You cant have your hands out from your body and expect to handle it with no punishment.

That was a clear penalty im afraid.
He is standing there with his hands above his head, and blocked a ball across the box. Imagine how angry you would be if it was at the other end and not given,.
You cant have your hands out from your body and expect to handle it with no punishment.jackez20591

*
BigFigure says...
12:10pm Mon 4 Feb 13
*
Big Jim is not off the ground, so the notion of using arms to assist a jump is nonsense.
*
Would like to see you jump, without using your arms !!!!.
*
Whether he jumped or not, it is NOT nonsense, in trying to jump as high as you can--by keeping your arms down by your side.
*
Your comment smacks of a bitter miserable pessimistic purely negative statement.
*

*
BigFigure says...
12:10pm Mon 4 Feb 13
*
Big Jim is not off the ground, so the notion of using arms to assist a jump is nonsense.
*
Would like to see you jump, without using your arms !!!!.
*
Whether he jumped or not, it is NOT nonsense, in trying to jump as high as you can--by keeping your arms down by your side.
*
Your comment smacks of a bitter miserable pessimistic purely negative statement.
*Freddy

Freddy wrote:
*
BigFigure says...
12:10pm Mon 4 Feb 13
*
Big Jim is not off the ground, so the notion of using arms to assist a jump is nonsense.
*
Would like to see you jump, without using your arms !!!!.
*
Whether he jumped or not, it is NOT nonsense, in trying to jump as high as you can--by keeping your arms down by your side.
*
Your comment smacks of a bitter miserable pessimistic purely negative statement.
*

Think you need to read again,Freddy...I am referring specifically to this incident. Hanson was not jumping, so wasn't using his arms to assist for that purpose on this occasion...take another look on iPlayer and you'll see this very clearly.

[quote][p][bold]Freddy[/bold] wrote:
*
BigFigure says...
12:10pm Mon 4 Feb 13
*
Big Jim is not off the ground, so the notion of using arms to assist a jump is nonsense.
*
Would like to see you jump, without using your arms !!!!.
*
Whether he jumped or not, it is NOT nonsense, in trying to jump as high as you can--by keeping your arms down by your side.
*
Your comment smacks of a bitter miserable pessimistic purely negative statement.
*[/p][/quote]Think you need to read again,Freddy...I am referring specifically to this incident. Hanson was not jumping, so wasn't using his arms to assist for that purpose on this occasion...take another look on iPlayer and you'll see this very clearly.BigFigure

Dancinfeet wrote:
Personally I thought it was a pen. If it hits his arms at the sides fair enough but they were up in the air and stopped what would have been a dangerous cross. If it had been our end we would have gone bonkers had it not been given. Positives- it's a good point at a tough place.

"a dangerous cross". Are you for real???? He hit the ball, at pace, from the ground's surface, up at a hand over 6ft in the air. He was standing a couple of yards away. You don't have to be an engineer to work out that at that angle, the ball was going nowhere but touch....!

[quote][p][bold]Dancinfeet[/bold] wrote:
Personally I thought it was a pen. If it hits his arms at the sides fair enough but they were up in the air and stopped what would have been a dangerous cross. If it had been our end we would have gone bonkers had it not been given. Positives- it's a good point at a tough place.[/p][/quote]"a dangerous cross". Are you for real???? He hit the ball, at pace, from the ground's surface, up at a hand over 6ft in the air. He was standing a couple of yards away. You don't have to be an engineer to work out that at that angle, the ball was going nowhere but touch....!Waynus1971

jackez20591 wrote:
That was a clear penalty im afraid. He is standing there with his hands above his head, and blocked a ball across the box. Imagine how angry you would be if it was at the other end and not given,. You cant have your hands out from your body and expect to handle it with no punishment.

He DIDN'T 'handle' it though. The ball struck him, which, in my opinion, is completely different. At no point did Hanson move his hands towards the ball.

As for those that are saying we would be angry that that type of decision isn't given for us; what you mean like most weeks? Wells had three almost identical free-kicks on Saturday. If you watch the footage on our goal (in slo-mo), you will see their player charging towards the ball before Wells makes contact. He is nowhere near 10 yds away. With his 2nd effort, the same player makes a run at eh ball and blocks it. The third time he does it, not only does he charge the ball down, but the ball clearly struck the lads hand. He had his hands up, making himself as 'big as possible'. How can Hanson's be deemed to be deliberate, yet the player that deliberately charged the ball down, wasn't penalised.

We didn't even get to retake either free-kick. Just shows what a jumped-up little pr@t was refereeing.....!

[quote][p][bold]jackez20591[/bold] wrote:
That was a clear penalty im afraid. He is standing there with his hands above his head, and blocked a ball across the box. Imagine how angry you would be if it was at the other end and not given,. You cant have your hands out from your body and expect to handle it with no punishment.[/p][/quote]He DIDN'T 'handle' it though. The ball struck him, which, in my opinion, is completely different. At no point did Hanson move his hands towards the ball.
As for those that are saying we would be angry that that type of decision isn't given for us; what you mean like most weeks? Wells had three almost identical free-kicks on Saturday. If you watch the footage on our goal (in slo-mo), you will see their player charging towards the ball before Wells makes contact. He is nowhere near 10 yds away. With his 2nd effort, the same player makes a run at eh ball and blocks it. The third time he does it, not only does he charge the ball down, but the ball clearly struck the lads hand. He had his hands up, making himself as 'big as possible'. How can Hanson's be deemed to be deliberate, yet the player that deliberately charged the ball down, wasn't penalised.
We didn't even get to retake either free-kick. Just shows what a jumped-up little pr@t was refereeing.....!Waynus1971

KnightMcCall wrote:
I think you are all missing the point and listening to muppet pundits on the TV. The rules ARE that it is NOT a penalty if the ball strikes you. Hanson was struck by a fast moving ball. He could not dream of getting out of the way of it...the only correct decision is NO PENALTY. One of too many poor calls by another poor ref.

handball must be deliberate!!!! this man should be a pundit. i remember lee dixon saying on tv the other month , that if these incidents (like james hansons) werent given then they'd be no penalties in football!!! and hes paid well to come out with that crap.... read this
http://sports.yahoo.

com/soccer/news?slug

=ycn-8987393

So what if there are no penalties; it's not compulsory. The rules specifically state that it is only a penalty if that handball is deliberate; you don't need to be a pundit to know this, you just need to be able to read. Hanson is stood next to a guy who kicks a ball; the ball hits his hand; not the other way round. How it is possible to interpret a ball hitting a hand as deliberate in ANY circumstance is nonsensical.

[quote][p][bold]glue ear[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]KnightMcCall[/bold] wrote:
I think you are all missing the point and listening to muppet pundits on the TV. The rules ARE that it is NOT a penalty if the ball strikes you. Hanson was struck by a fast moving ball. He could not dream of getting out of the way of it...the only correct decision is NO PENALTY. One of too many poor calls by another poor ref.[/p][/quote]handball must be deliberate!!!! this man should be a pundit. i remember lee dixon saying on tv the other month , that if these incidents (like james hansons) werent given then they'd be no penalties in football!!! and hes paid well to come out with that crap.... read this
http://sports.yahoo.
com/soccer/news?slug
=ycn-8987393[/p][/quote]So what if there are no penalties; it's not compulsory. The rules specifically state that it is only a penalty if that handball is deliberate; you don't need to be a pundit to know this, you just need to be able to read. Hanson is stood next to a guy who kicks a ball; the ball hits his hand; not the other way round. How it is possible to interpret a ball hitting a hand as deliberate in ANY circumstance is nonsensical.KnightMcCall

jackez20591 wrote:
That was a clear penalty im afraid.
He is standing there with his hands above his head, and blocked a ball across the box. Imagine how angry you would be if it was at the other end and not given,.

You cant have your hands out from your body and expect to handle it with no punishment.

maybe they need to give the players pockets in their shorts then so they have somewhere to put them.

Whilst clearly the ball hit his hand; the ref MUST interpret that has deliberate to be able to give a penalty. How can anyon suggest that it was deliberate?

[quote][p][bold]jackez20591[/bold] wrote:
That was a clear penalty im afraid.
He is standing there with his hands above his head, and blocked a ball across the box. Imagine how angry you would be if it was at the other end and not given,.
You cant have your hands out from your body and expect to handle it with no punishment.[/p][/quote]maybe they need to give the players pockets in their shorts then so they have somewhere to put them.
Whilst clearly the ball hit his hand; the ref MUST interpret that has deliberate to be able to give a penalty. How can anyon suggest that it was deliberate?KnightMcCall

jackez20591 wrote:
That was a clear penalty im afraid. He is standing there with his hands above his head, and blocked a ball across the box. Imagine how angry you would be if it was at the other end and not given,. You cant have your hands out from your body and expect to handle it with no punishment.

He DIDN'T 'handle' it though. The ball struck him, which, in my opinion, is completely different. At no point did Hanson move his hands towards the ball.

As for those that are saying we would be angry that that type of decision isn't given for us; what you mean like most weeks? Wells had three almost identical free-kicks on Saturday. If you watch the footage on our goal (in slo-mo), you will see their player charging towards the ball before Wells makes contact. He is nowhere near 10 yds away. With his 2nd effort, the same player makes a run at eh ball and blocks it. The third time he does it, not only does he charge the ball down, but the ball clearly struck the lads hand. He had his hands up, making himself as 'big as possible'. How can Hanson's be deemed to be deliberate, yet the player that deliberately charged the ball down, wasn't penalised.

We didn't even get to retake either free-kick. Just shows what a jumped-up little pr@t was refereeing.....!

Very well spotted Waynus I was doing my nut when the guy charged down a Wells free kick; he must have been less than 5 yards away when the ball was initially struck; that's not just a re-take; it is also a booking. Instead, he just let play carry on.

[quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]jackez20591[/bold] wrote:
That was a clear penalty im afraid. He is standing there with his hands above his head, and blocked a ball across the box. Imagine how angry you would be if it was at the other end and not given,. You cant have your hands out from your body and expect to handle it with no punishment.[/p][/quote]He DIDN'T 'handle' it though. The ball struck him, which, in my opinion, is completely different. At no point did Hanson move his hands towards the ball.
As for those that are saying we would be angry that that type of decision isn't given for us; what you mean like most weeks? Wells had three almost identical free-kicks on Saturday. If you watch the footage on our goal (in slo-mo), you will see their player charging towards the ball before Wells makes contact. He is nowhere near 10 yds away. With his 2nd effort, the same player makes a run at eh ball and blocks it. The third time he does it, not only does he charge the ball down, but the ball clearly struck the lads hand. He had his hands up, making himself as 'big as possible'. How can Hanson's be deemed to be deliberate, yet the player that deliberately charged the ball down, wasn't penalised.
We didn't even get to retake either free-kick. Just shows what a jumped-up little pr@t was refereeing.....![/p][/quote]Very well spotted Waynus I was doing my nut when the guy charged down a Wells free kick; he must have been less than 5 yards away when the ball was initially struck; that's not just a re-take; it is also a booking. Instead, he just let play carry on.KnightMcCall

BCFC1234 wrote:
Have City lost or drawn a game fairly this season. It's always the referee's fault.

The refs have such a dramatic impact in recent years that whatever the score happens to be, the refs generally have a significant input into the result. That should not be the case.

We lost quite fairly at Villa Park by the way.

[quote][p][bold]BCFC1234[/bold] wrote:
Have City lost or drawn a game fairly this season. It's always the referee's fault.[/p][/quote]The refs have such a dramatic impact in recent years that whatever the score happens to be, the refs generally have a significant input into the result. That should not be the case.
We lost quite fairly at Villa Park by the way.KnightMcCall

BCFC1234 wrote:
Have City lost or drawn a game fairly this season. It's always the referee's fault.

Laughable, innit?

Parker, Thornton, the fans, 'one-eyed' doesn't do it justice. The penalty was at worst a 50-50 call and the talk amongst 'our lot' at halftime was that our cup exploits and new found celebrity status was getting referees to treat us favourably. Say what you like but Saturdays ref gave us just about everything during the first 45 so to blame him for such an abject performance and two dropped points is grossly unfair.

After performing so well in the cup and being treated to a break in Tenerife, rather than blaming the ref, the fans should be asking why the team put in the worst first half performance of the season. Jones apart, City were woeful. Atkinson was simply dreadful and Wells and Doyle were nothing more than passengers.

Get it sorted Parkinson!

[quote][p][bold]BCFC1234[/bold] wrote:
Have City lost or drawn a game fairly this season. It's always the referee's fault.[/p][/quote]Laughable, innit?
Parker, Thornton, the fans, 'one-eyed' doesn't do it justice. The penalty was at worst a 50-50 call and the talk amongst 'our lot' at halftime was that our cup exploits and new found celebrity status was getting referees to treat us favourably. Say what you like but Saturdays ref gave us just about everything during the first 45 so to blame him for such an abject performance and two dropped points is grossly unfair.
After performing so well in the cup and being treated to a break in Tenerife, rather than blaming the ref, the fans should be asking why the team put in the worst first half performance of the season. Jones apart, City were woeful. Atkinson was simply dreadful and Wells and Doyle were nothing more than passengers.
Get it sorted Parkinson!Shadrach Dingle

Still think it were a pen myself and I'd be gutted if we hadn't got one as obvious. The handball we got against dale was more debatable as the guy just threw himself into a block and the ball hits his arm. We get the calls as well at times, as for needing his arms for balance, this is true but above his head like a ballerina, this is nonsense he was more like he was defending in basketball than football

Still think it were a pen myself and I'd be gutted if we hadn't got one as obvious. The handball we got against dale was more debatable as the guy just threw himself into a block and the ball hits his arm. We get the calls as well at times, as for needing his arms for balance, this is true but above his head like a ballerina, this is nonsense he was more like he was defending in basketball than footballmacca1969

macca1969 wrote:
Still think it were a pen myself and I'd be gutted if we hadn't got one as obvious. The handball we got against dale was more debatable as the guy just threw himself into a block and the ball hits his arm. We get the calls as well at times, as for needing his arms for balance, this is true but above his head like a ballerina, this is nonsense he was more like he was defending in basketball than football

Yes, but the key part in your argument was that the Rochdale player (in your own words), "threw himself into a block", thus give every opportunity for the ball to strike him. Hanson put his arms up, out of the way (whether that be right or not), and did not move them anywhere towards the ball !!!!

You have stated you have found a referee's handbook that gives guidance to help the referee determine whether the incident was intentional or not. Look up the word 'guidance' and you will see that it means 'advice/counsel'. It isn't a black/white incident and simply means that referees should be considering this when making their decision.

At the end of the day, the referee is supposed to be determining if the action was deliberate. Are you seriously suggesting that, irrespective of arms position, he deliberately put his hands up to block the path of the ball??????? If the answer to that is 'no', then it wasn't deliberate and cannot be given as a foul.

I remember last season you berating a decision when we had a player sent off. The referee said our player may have won the ball cleanly, but showed too much aggression. You said this was ludicrous, yet that same 'guidance' is in the handbook....!

[quote][p][bold]macca1969[/bold] wrote:
Still think it were a pen myself and I'd be gutted if we hadn't got one as obvious. The handball we got against dale was more debatable as the guy just threw himself into a block and the ball hits his arm. We get the calls as well at times, as for needing his arms for balance, this is true but above his head like a ballerina, this is nonsense he was more like he was defending in basketball than football[/p][/quote]Yes, but the key part in your argument was that the Rochdale player (in your own words), "threw himself into a block", thus give every opportunity for the ball to strike him. Hanson put his arms up, out of the way (whether that be right or not), and did not move them anywhere towards the ball !!!!
You have stated you have found a referee's handbook that gives guidance to help the referee determine whether the incident was intentional or not. Look up the word 'guidance' and you will see that it means 'advice/counsel'. It isn't a black/white incident and simply means that referees should be considering this when making their decision.
At the end of the day, the referee is supposed to be determining if the action was deliberate. Are you seriously suggesting that, irrespective of arms position, he deliberately put his hands up to block the path of the ball??????? If the answer to that is 'no', then it wasn't deliberate and cannot be given as a foul.
I remember last season you berating a decision when we had a player sent off. The referee said our player may have won the ball cleanly, but showed too much aggression. You said this was ludicrous, yet that same 'guidance' is in the handbook....!Waynus1971

macca1969 wrote:
Still think it were a pen myself and I'd be gutted if we hadn't got one as obvious. The handball we got against dale was more debatable as the guy just threw himself into a block and the ball hits his arm. We get the calls as well at times, as for needing his arms for balance, this is true but above his head like a ballerina, this is nonsense he was more like he was defending in basketball than football

Yes, but the key part in your argument was that the Rochdale player (in your own words), &quot;threw himself into a block", thus give every opportunity for the ball to strike him. Hanson put his arms up, out of the way (whether that be right or not), and did not move them anywhere towards the ball !!!!

You have stated you have found a referee's handbook that gives guidance to help the referee determine whether the incident was intentional or not. Look up the word 'guidance' and you will see that it means 'advice/counsel'. It isn't a black/white incident and simply means that referees should be considering this when making their decision.

At the end of the day, the referee is supposed to be determining if the action was deliberate. Are you seriously suggesting that, irrespective of arms position, he deliberately put his hands up to block the path of the ball??????? If the answer to that is 'no', then it wasn't deliberate and cannot be given as a foul.

I remember last season you berating a decision when we had a player sent off. The referee said our player may have won the ball cleanly, but showed too much aggression. You said this was ludicrous, yet that same 'guidance' is in the handbook....!

Not saying I agree with the book that interprets the laws, I'm just saying to me it was a clear penalty. His hands under no circumstances should be so far above his head. The dale player threw his body at the ball not his arms which were in a natural position when throwing himself in front if the ball. He had no way of getting his hand out if the way. A couple if years back a Rotherham player was also judged to have handled from point blank. If as you are saying it doesn't matter where ones hands are unless you deliberately strike the ball with your hands it should make defending much easier as all players can then dance around with arms in every direction waving frantically. As long as you are no more than a couple of yards away it can't be deemed deliberate and as such we can blame it on getting our balance or showing the ref we are not pulling or shoving the attacker. In fact maybe we should go away with handball all together because if truth be told only a very few are ever deliberate.

[quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]macca1969[/bold] wrote:
Still think it were a pen myself and I'd be gutted if we hadn't got one as obvious. The handball we got against dale was more debatable as the guy just threw himself into a block and the ball hits his arm. We get the calls as well at times, as for needing his arms for balance, this is true but above his head like a ballerina, this is nonsense he was more like he was defending in basketball than football[/p][/quote]Yes, but the key part in your argument was that the Rochdale player (in your own words), "threw himself into a block", thus give every opportunity for the ball to strike him. Hanson put his arms up, out of the way (whether that be right or not), and did not move them anywhere towards the ball !!!!
You have stated you have found a referee's handbook that gives guidance to help the referee determine whether the incident was intentional or not. Look up the word 'guidance' and you will see that it means 'advice/counsel'. It isn't a black/white incident and simply means that referees should be considering this when making their decision.
At the end of the day, the referee is supposed to be determining if the action was deliberate. Are you seriously suggesting that, irrespective of arms position, he deliberately put his hands up to block the path of the ball??????? If the answer to that is 'no', then it wasn't deliberate and cannot be given as a foul.
I remember last season you berating a decision when we had a player sent off. The referee said our player may have won the ball cleanly, but showed too much aggression. You said this was ludicrous, yet that same 'guidance' is in the handbook....![/p][/quote]Not saying I agree with the book that interprets the laws, I'm just saying to me it was a clear penalty. His hands under no circumstances should be so far above his head. The dale player threw his body at the ball not his arms which were in a natural position when throwing himself in front if the ball. He had no way of getting his hand out if the way. A couple if years back a Rotherham player was also judged to have handled from point blank. If as you are saying it doesn't matter where ones hands are unless you deliberately strike the ball with your hands it should make defending much easier as all players can then dance around with arms in every direction waving frantically. As long as you are no more than a couple of yards away it can't be deemed deliberate and as such we can blame it on getting our balance or showing the ref we are not pulling or shoving the attacker. In fact maybe we should go away with handball all together because if truth be told only a very few are ever deliberate.macca1969